Making It Legal:

In a recent round of litigation concerning online content hosts, the online complaint site Ripoff Report won a defamation (and trademark) lawsuit filed in Florida by a Colorado company.

According to the site, the Ripoff Report is a worldwide consumer reporting website and publication by consumers, for consumers, to file and document complaints about companies or individuals. Apparently, it provides users with pre-programmed categories, or labels, for classifying their posts. The defendant, Whitney Information Network, became riled when it discovered that the posts complaining about it had been tagged with labels such as “corrupt companies” and “false TV advertising,” in addition to the more banal (and benign) “seminar programs” and “trade schools.”

The Florida federal district court relied on Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which protects content hosts from liability for the comments and information placed on the site by users. Even though the Ripoff Report site provided the “categories,” the court found that that was not sufficient to move it out of the realm of mere host (where it is protected) and into the realm of content provider (where it would be more vulnerable).

To learn more about the case, see Wendy Davis’s article in Online Media Daily.

A worldy-wise business guru once wrote:

A business partnership is about two things: partnership and business. Women entrepreneurs look to partnerships for the relationship benefits, not the monetary benefits. As a result, they don’t focus sufficiently on the business (money) considerations.

Smart or just cynical?
(A clue: I wrote it–see my blogpost featured on The Huffington Post).

Any time you accept money from someone else to help your business grow, you should put that relationship in writing. Many a lawsuit has been brought because of misunderstandings about (1) how much would be provided, (2) when the money would be provided, (3) whether there were benchmarks that needed to be achieved in order to receive more money, and (4) how and when the money needed to be repaid.

From Business Week online is this helpful post from Karen Klein on the subject. And make sure you bring in your attorney to wrap up the legal details.

Whatever I may want to say about the current occupant of the Oval Office and those seeking to sit in his chair, I wouldn’t want the job. Not for a million squillion dollars. Whether it’s brass balls or sheer insanity that makes people want the post, I’ll tip my hat to them for tenacity and courage. My life couldn’t withstand such intense scrutiny (thank God there was no Facebook when I was in college!).

So, in honor of the day, and the people who have served (and will serve) in the office of president of the United States (POTUS), here are some tidbits about the job and how it works:

• Who were all the presidents?
• Qualifications for the office
• The executive branch and Cabinet
• Duties and powers
• The Electoral College
• History of the White House and video tours (with the president as tour guide!)

I may have mentioned in this blog the joke about the doctor and the appendix surgery: A man goes to the hospital to have his appendix removed. He receives the surgeon’s invoice for $10,000, and calls up the surgeon, furious. “How could this operation possibly have cost $10,000?” he screams. “I want to see an itemization of the costs of this procedure!” The surgeon responds with an itemized bill: $1,000 for making incision; $9,000 for knowing where to make incision.

I’ll leave the issue of how important it is for professionals to disclose their fees to clients in advance for another post. For today, however, I have another lesson: Sometimes, you get what you pay for. And if you pay nothing (or very little) for legal services, you may get just that.

This came to mind because of a recent article in The New York Times. Two brothers in Colorado have been accused of duping clients in a long-standing (15-year) fraud by running companies that claim to be a “legal aid” referral service, offering to “help you through the legal process.” As reported by Kirk Johnson,

Some victims wired money in exchange for legal help that never materialized, Ms. Martinez said. She offered the example of a Texas woman, Kristy Matthijetz, who sought help in a child custody case and paid a fee of $525. Ms. Matthijetz was told that a lawyer would meet her at her hearing, but the lawyer never appeared. She spoke for herself in court and ended up losing custody of her daughter.

A word to the wise: Unless you’re dealing with an attorney you have met or who comes recommended, do a little digging to make sure he or she is really an advisor who can meet your needs.

With more and more people (especially Gen Yers and Millenials) posting their personal information on the internet, it seems a handy place for employers to go to scoop up background information on prospective hires. After all, by publishing this information on their blogs, Facebook pages and MySpace profiles, the potential employees can hardly claim that this information is private. I mean, if you’re too dumb to know that unless specifically encrypted, your blog is totally open to computer-connected Planet Earth, you’re too dumb to be hired, right? So whatever an employer finds is fair game, yes?

Not exactly. As with other hiring and screening processes, unless an employer utilizes them fairly–and handles the information received objectively across the board–an employer could be held liable for discriminatory hiring practices.

Let’s say that Jarhead Corp. is screening two applicants: One is a white male, who has posted a photo with fraternity buddies, holding beers; the other is a Chinese female, whose photo shows her with close friends at an LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rally, revealing pierced navel and tattoos. Can an employer honestly say that the LGBT context and race won’t come into play? Similarly, can an employer document that the same degree and level of searching on the internet is done about all candidates? Or is it only to dig up dirt about female ones to find a reason not to hire them?

If an employer does not have a set policy (or list of steps) for the ways it goes about evaluating its employee candidates, it can leave itself open to a world of hurt. That is particularly true because the nexus between social media and law is so new, and there’s not a lot of case law yet to give employers guidance as to how these kinds of issues will be received by courts and legislators. Best to consult an employment attorney when developing a hiring strategy to make sure that the tactics you use don’t run afoul of the law.

Forwarded to me by sister Entrepreneur blogger, Lena West, was this curious tidbit from MediaPost, about a case before a European court. It seems that “Internet service providers in the EU need not disclose the names of suspected file-sharers.” This is in stark contrast to the latitude given the Recording Industry Association of America to subpoena suspected file-sharers.

Why does that matter? Because culturally, in Europe, privacy rights are far stronger than they are in the U.S. So strong, in fact, that a ripple effect from this case could be that an IP address would be regarded as personal data (at least in Europe).

This is a healthy reminder of a couple of important things. First, that U.S. laws and perspectives on business, commerce and privacy are not necessarily shared worldwide. The U.S. may have taken the lead in many aspects of internet use and protocol, but attitudes are still somewhat territorial. The global availability of information does not equate to a globally unified perspective on how it should be used. Second, within the U.S. itself, there are differences in how issues of state laws on privacy (among other things) are handled. That’s why it’s so important to be sure that you consult an attorney who understands the laws of the state in which you are doing business. Also, your terms and conditions should name your state as the place where (and the law) where disputes will be handled. Otherwise, you risk having to consult attorneys in every state in which you have a customer to make sure you have not run afoul of their laws.

For those of you based in the New York area, the Small Business Summit on February 11, 2008, is not to be missed. Focusing on the importance of using technology to streamline and enhance your business, this Third Annual Small Business Summit 2008 is (apparently) the only summit “by business owners for business owners.” This year’s theme is “It’s Time to Reinvent Your Business.”

Full disclosure: I’m slated to speak at the conference, both as part of an introductory “warmup” act (because of my comedy background, I’ve been asked to be funnier, zanier and more “killer” than Robin Williams, but I wouldn’t put money on it) and as part of the late morning panel discussing business reinvention called “From the Trenches.” But this is a conference I would have been eager to attend, even without the speaking opportunities. Come to the Summit.